ACCESS TO GUNS DOUBLES AND TRIPLES RISK OF BEING MURDERED AND COMMITTING SUICIDE, RESPECTIVELY, SAYS SURVEY

People who have access to firearms are two times more likely to be killed, and three times more likely to commit suicide, according to a new analysis of a number of gun violence studies. Author Andrew Anglemyer and colleagues at UC San Francisco conducted a large-scale review of data from California (and other states), the United States, and other countries.

For the new review, the researchers analyzed 14 studies that looked at the risk of committing suicide among people who did and didn’t have access to guns and five studies that looked at gun access and the risk of being murdered. Four of the studies examined both suicide and murder risk.

The studies were published between 1988 and 2005. All but one found people with access to firearms had heightened risks of dying from suicide and murder.

“Most analyses will find some conflicting studies,” Anglemyer told Reuters Health. “That’s not at all what we see here.”

The researchers found having access to a gun was tied to a three-fold increase in the likelihood that people would kill themselves.

Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). About 12 out of every 100,000 people commit suicide each year.

Anglemyer’s team also found about a two-fold increased risk of death from murder among people who had access to a gun, compared to those without access to firearms. For women, the increased risk of being killed was even higher.

Firearms cause an estimated 31 000 deaths annually in the United States. Data from the 16-state National Violent Death Reporting System indicate that 51.8% of deaths from suicide in 2009 (n = 9949) were firearm-related; among homicide victims (n = 4057), 66.5% were firearm-related. Most suicides (76.4%) occurred in the victims’ homes. Homicides also frequently occurred in the home, with 45.5% of male victims and 74.0% of female victims killed at home.

Firearm ownership is more prevalent in the United States than in any other country; approximately 35% to 39% of households have firearms, and 22% of persons report owning firearms. The annual rate of suicide by firearms (6.3 suicides per 100 000 residents) is higher in the United States than in any other country with reported data, and the annual rate of firearm-related homicide in the United States (7.1 homicides per 100 000 residents) is the highest among high-income countries (4). Results from ecological studies suggest that state restrictions on firearm ownership are associated with decreases in firearm-related suicides and homicides (5).

…The apparent increased risk for suicide associated with firearms in the home is not unique to persons with a history of mental illness (7) and may be more of an indicator of the ease of impulsive suicide.

Impulsiveness may be a catalyst in using a firearm to commit suicide and may also play a role in firearm-related homicide. Researchers have estimated higher odds of homicide victimization among women than men (9–10). Because most homicide victims know their perpetrators (9), this finding may indicate an impulsive reaction to domestic disputes.

TWO INTERESTING EDITORIALS FROM THE LA AND NY TIMES

A new LA Times editorial takes a look at “pay-for-success” financing for social programs—in which a non-profit and/or private enterprise put up money and run such programs as, say, helping prisoners successfully reenter their communities. If they are effective, they are then repaid with government money. Various states are experimenting with the idea, including California, but there may be pitfalls. Here’s a clip:

The cornerstone of criminal justice reform is the belief that offenders leaving prison could be prevented from committing new crimes and getting locked up all over again, if only government could find the right social service organization to provide the right programming. Crime would drop, some prisons could close and taxpayers would save money.

First, though, officials have to identify rehabilitation programs that work, and that means evaluating claims and evidence offered by competing providers, and perhaps making so many wrong choices before landing on the right one that the effort hardly seems worth it. Even elected officials and high-ranking bureaucrats who believe in criminal justice reform are skittish about trying something new, so they often give in to their colleagues who prefer costly and unsuccessful but comfortably familiar policies on sentencing, imprisonment and parole.

But what if someone else agrees to take all the risk? What if some outsider — a nonprofit service provider, let’s say, or a charitable foundation, or maybe even a commercial bank — raises the funds, runs the program, produces the results, then gets reimbursed with public money only after presenting verified proof of success?

Later this year, analysts will publish results of an experiment along those lines begun in 2010 at Peterborough Prison outside London. The social impact bond project, as this kind of financing and problem-solving innovation is often called, uses money put up by investors and managed by a nonprofit group, which contracts with another organization to provide recently released inmates with mentoring and other services intended to break the cycle of re-offending.

If an independent evaluator confirms that the program “worked,” as defined by agreed-upon criteria for decreasing new convictions — and preliminary analyses are encouraging — the British government will repay the investors’ capital plus an agreed-upon premium. If the success targets aren’t met, the investors eat the costs and the taxpayers owe nothing.

It is mindless to keep throwing billions at border enforcement and detention at a time when illegal immigration is at historic lows, when other, more pressing government functions are being starved and when none of the money spent actually goes toward solving the problem.

Take the irrational obligation to fill all those detention beds, at a cost of about $122 a day. Why make the people who run a vast and expensive law-enforcement apparatus responsible for keeping prison beds warm rather than communities safe — especially when there are low-cost alternatives to detention that don’t involve fattening the bottom lines of for-profit prison corporations?

Congress’s arbitrary detention mandates and the Obama administration’s aggressive use of its enforcement powers have pushed deportations to record levels of 400,000 a year. This has had no discernible effect on the overall problem, but it has caused abundant anguish in immigrant families and their communities.

What’s most disheartening about the spending splurge is that it attacks only the symptoms of the ailing immigration system…

The private prison company GEO Group has already maxed out their legal limit for donations to Governor Jerry Brown’s campaign for reelection, donating a total of $54,400. While Gov. Brown’s recently released budget proposal banks on federal judges pushing back their prison overcrowding deadline by two years, $500M was still set aside to send more than 17,000 inmates to private prisons like GEO Group (practitioner of alarming profit-making “lock-up quotas”). (Read the backstory here.)

Labor unions, Hollywood’s glitterati, California philanthropists and a private company profiting from Gov. Jerry Brown’s fight over prison crowding are among 72 top donors who have maxed out on contributions to Brown’s reelection campaign even before he officially runs.

Brown’s campaign fund reports receiving two $27,200 checks in early January from the GEO Group, based in Boca Raton, Fla. The company in September signed contracts with the state worth $150 million to house 1,400 inmates in two low-security facilities within California, in Adelanto and in McFarland. That’s more than double the $25,900 that GEO gave to Brown late in the 2010 race, an amount it also gave to Brown’s competitor, Meg Whitman.

BOB OLMSTED TO RELEASE PLAN TO REFORM SHERIFF’S DEPT.

LA County Sheriff hopeful Bob Olmsted will be holding a press conference today (Wednesday) at 11AM outside of Men’s Central Jail to reveal his plan for reforming the department, should he be elected. (We’ll have more on the details tomorrow.)

(And, by the way, former Undersheriff/Sheriff candidate Paul Tanaka was interviewed on KFI’s John and Ken Show on Tuesday evening. It’s…very lively, and not something you’d want to miss. Trust us.)

On Thursday, Jan. 23, the LA County Board of Supervisors has scheduled a special private session to consider interim Sheriff contenders to replace Lee Baca when he retires at the end of January. (Backstory here, if you missed it.) A decision is expected very soon. We’ll keep you posted.

24 Responses

WOW, that was entertaining to say the least! I knew once Paul was asked the hard questions he would fall on his face and he did. The Viking was a station mascot! HA, thats the same answer everyone gave at Lynwood Station that had a tattoo, and you didn’t know what the Lynwood/Viking Lawsuit was about?. Also, you’ve NEVER met Sexton and Rathbun? You knew nothing about inmate AB being hidden? Paul, you are so full of S#$T it is laughable. This is the REAL Paul Tanaka people!!

Tanaka got hammered by John and ken,denied what hundreds heard him saying. He wants to be the Sheriff, claims to have 33 years of experience on the sheriff’s department, however, did not hear or see anything,all are lies and fabrications to prevent him from being sheriff…he was pathetic….here is the link to John and Ken…who gave him the cigar box after he told Captain Clark to stop the rotations?

Rabbit: I’m neither a Tanaka supporter nor a detractor. That “interview” was just a typical John and Ken hit job. Yes, Tanaka stammered and generally embarrassed himself, but they (in typical fashion) didn’t let the man speak. Any time a “reformer” is up for the top spot, they should be allowed at least a short amount of time to lay out their vision.

That said, I don’t think the man has a snowball’s chance in hell in this election.

#4 you are 100% correct. I thought the debates would be interesting because Mr. Tanaka would be asked the tough questions. I didn’t have to wait for a debate between Mr. Tanaka and the other candidates. Whoever is Mr. Tanaka’s campaign manager should be fired immediately. To not be able to anticipate those questions, and the ensuing reaction from John & Ken shows a complete lack of foresight. Hit job? That’s what John & Ken do. They ask the tough questions. If you don’t have an answer that makes you look even remotely credible, don’t do the interview. Disaster doesn’t begin to explain that interview. It seems Mr. Tanaka believes that balancing the budget of Gardena and repeating the mantra “I have a proven track record over 33 years” will be enough to get him elected. It’s possible, if he refrains from doing any more of these interviews. He may not be able to overcome just that one interview. #6 could be right.
For what reason did Mr. Tanaka believe it would be a good idea to do that interview?
it seems once the quest for power becomes insatiable it tends to make even intelligent men do incredibly foolish things.

Hey Paul, does the term, “You just had your ass handed to you,” have any special meaning? A couple of thoughts; First, in true Tanaka fashion, he threw Greg Thompson, the ICIB crew and all of those OSJ folks who thought they would be transferred to Homicide or SEB three weeks after completing patrol training, all under the Amtrak. Too Tall Paul denied any knowledge and denied giving any orders to hide the inmate. We’ll ladies and gentlemen, you witnessed with your own ears how a narcissist works. Dan Cruz and the list of executives we all hear who are on deck for the next round of indictments, you are so screwed. Second, Tanaka is either a bigger idiot than we thought for going on J&K, or he hired the most incompetent political manager that money can buy. Third, all you Kool Aid drinkers, cigar rollers, ash tray cleaners a boot lickers, you hooked your wagons to Tanaka’s tractor and it just went over a cliff. Enjoy the long ride down, you earned it.

Sorry, John and Ken seems to really want to be cheap, lawyers talking on the radio. I thought it was a poor interview from them as they were acting like bullies in not letting him speak. They were so busy talking to one another, laughing, cutting the man off I stopped listening.
I can not imagine anyone who is running for Sheriff to go on that show after hearing how they treat their guest.

Nancy Drew, you keep wishing for Rogers or Hellmold to do something, I don’t know what, and not be who they are. They both benefited from political patronage, handed jobs they are imminently unqualified for, and either participated directly in corrupt activity or enabled it by looking the other way and assisting in retaliating against those who tried to stand up and do the right thing.

Exactly what do you see in these two narcissistic fools that makes you believe they are sheriff material?

Here’s the link for the follow up on The Tanaka interview thttp://www.kfiam640.com/media/podcast-john-and-ken-on-demand-JohnandKen/tanaka-feedback-3pm-122-24223981/oday…Check out the LA Weekly story as well…

Like them or not John and Ken are the number one rated show during Los Angeles afternoon drive time. The voters now know what a mess this guy made LASD. Hey, bad news for you Paul, their going to re-run this interview again tomorrow!

LATBG- Was that Harper, Graham, and the rest of the gang standing behind Olmstead today? Nice Strategy for him to piggy back Hellmold’s press conference and ride his coattails. Is that why he moved his press conference from yesterday to today? I guess you have to get attention somehow. Hey, where was that plan when he was an active commander? Where can I get a copy of his reform rhetoric so I can pick it apart for all to see? As for Rogers, don’t hold your breath for dynamic action. I’ll let the cat out of the bag. Rogers cut a deal with McDonnell to take “Assistant Sheriff” votes from Hellmold. Sorry to disappoint all you Rogers fans. That’s just how he rolls. He sold his soul with the hopes of being undersheriff.

If anyone here has listened to John and Ken in the past, then you would be well aware of their anti police, anti public worker opinions. Their comments regarding the Kelly Thomas trial in Orange County should be enough for anyone on this site to realize that they are on the warpath against cops. They would also like to take away our pensions, and believe we are vastly overpaid. So their treatment of Tanaka is to be expected. So despise the man all you want, but don’t for a second think they will ever give anyone here an ounce of credit for our profession. No matter who gets elected, those two cowards will be hiding behind their microphones, waiting for a use of force to be caught on a cell phone camera, so they can bash every single one of us. Don’t let your hatred for one candidate or another make you lose sight of that. We all may have disagreements and differences of opinion, but I would hope that we will still roll hard on a backup request for one another…..

Once again if you haven’t heard the interview-you should and wonder why is Paul even in this race? And as the campaign moves forward the questions will only get harder and the lies more pronounced. The Viking gang symbol is a “mascot?!” Whoa!

Olmsted’s Press conference was very good from what I saw. I have read over Olmsted’s plan for reform and Olmsted will need to mend some fences to get it all done.

I have also read what Gomez proposes and that too is all good but once again a lot needs to happen to get it done.

Anyone else notice, that at around 18:20, when John and Ken ask about the Rathbun/Sexton lawsuit details, that Tanaka’s voice hitched like he was… was he gonna cry? Paul must have been standing on a chair trying to get away from these two. They brutalized him. Baca would have done better, and that’s an insult.

IthacaBoomer: Don’t bother with LATBG… he/she spews the same old “rah rah Mr Olmstead, everyone else is evil and corrupt.” Never talks about Mr Olmsteads qualifications, but insults everyone else. Childish and arrogant. And God forbid you disagree or have opposing opinions, he’ll cry and call you a Mr Tanaka supporter and call you evil and then cry, “are you threatening me? Are you threatening me?” Whaaa whaaaa whaaaaa!

I think most people would concur the John and Ken show is definitely a right wing, anti-union, anti-public employee benefit program. They frequently blast law enforcement salaries, benefits, and practices. (it is mind blowing how many cops are right wing and willing to vote their pensions out, don’t they know the conservatives think our pensions are “handouts?”)Ia, no Einstein and I believe those statements to be true.
So with that knowledge once can come up with two scenarios that persuaded Tanaka to go on the show;
His campaign people are really piss poor or;
he saw what Miley Cyrus did with twerking and decided to do a radio show version.
Miss Cyrus’ performance was blasted for being in poor taste and brash. But in her opinion it is what she needed. Because she believes by doing it, people still talk about it, and that gets her name out there. More name recognition more record sales.
In Tanaka’s case, the interview was piss poor, but most people know John and Ken,so they understand the type of interview, BUT people are talking about it, and they are re-airing the interview. So more people will talk about Tanaka.
Maybe he believes more name recognition more votes.
As for me, I think it was a dumb move.

I hear the unique sounds of a sinking ship and swimming to the relative safety of another ship. Yes, the Tanaka crowd is floundering, and now jumping on the Hellmold bandwagon. Apparently you can keep the same cigar coins. You want Olmsted’s qualifications? Read for yourself:

I agree that John and Ken are very anti-public employee, BUT, they put the spurs to Tanaka in a manner that was well overdue. This is the beauty of Tanaka, he is not slick, wise and lacks common sense. Paul was good at sitting in a cubicle and crunching numbers and that is all, this is the reason that every station, unit, bureau and division he has supervised or commanded (term used loosely) has ended in turmoil. So, I believe the proper statement regarding the J&K interview is that it doesn’t keep people talking about Paul, but rather buckled over laughing at Paul.

Government should be open to funding alternative programs wherever they have the potential for positive effect on long-stagnant outcomes.
However, its slightly absurd for California and other states to consider using a social impact bond project in the attempt to improve ex-prisoner reintegration and reduce recidivism.
Results from the Peterborough Prison experiment later this year may offer encouragement, but they’re of no use to California until we are ready to look at the big picture.
As it stands, most of those released by the California prison system are ineligible to participate in most or all of the crucial public assistance programs. No food stamps, no general assistance, no tuition grants, no housing subsidies. They may even be prohibited from taking residence with family who already occupy subsidized housing.
Allowing a private entity to substitute the resources an ex-prisoner is prohibited from receiving publicly,
and then paying a return on their investment for an improved outcome – is the kind of plan the British would label as “daft”.

Leave a Comment

Name:

Mail (will not be published):

Website:

Comment:

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.